American Politics

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;3086878]What a complete crock of shit made up by some lawyer. SC makes the comment about the Constitution and racism and citizenship so in some ways this to me is the most important sentence in the Constitution. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

And no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[/QUOTE]Huh! Not exactly sure, what conversation this post of yours is referring to, that I had with SubCmdr, but none recently, that I know of, covered racism, citizenship or a passage relating to [I]"The right of the people..."[/I] etc.

But I'm pretty sure our constitutional disagreements, stemmed from whether the [I]"the loyal opposition"[/I] is constitutional or not and then later on in the conversational debate, it focused on, [I]"What is the U.S. Constitution?[/I].

Don't think your post addresses either of those talking points, so feel free to circle-back and check our conversational debate on those two (2) constitutional subject matters, or correct my understanding of what you posted and chime in again, with your two-cents worth, when you have something credible to add.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;3088264]LOL. I agree that is true. Sadly, what SHOULD be true is energy generation should be apolitical.[/QUOTE]Yes, if only your dumbass MAGA Fuhrer understood this!

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;3088264]I would not get giddy about new power generation. It takes years to get power generation on line, and this increase seems like the Biden plan at work. There is also a huge waiting list for natural gas turbines, and [b]the slow down of delivery of turbines has contributed to more solar and wind as much as anything[/b].[/QUOTE]If anything you should be thanking President Biden and VP. Harris and President Obama, for putting American on the right "ALL OF THE ABOVE" energy path, to include clean energy renewables (SWB), that have been hugely instrumental, in cushioning and managing the increased upswing in additional electricity usage in the US.

Your so called luckily raise of renewables (SWB), due to a pathetic [I]"slow down of delivery of turbines",[/I] is more a tale to be told about the arrogance the fossil fuel industry, than anything else. Which BTW, has had it great for 125+ years, but no more, since there's a new kid on the block, and a new heavy-weight challenger in the energy ring.

The raise of renewable (SWB) energy, is just more about the cheapest cost of energy. Period. Renewables will win the day, going forward because most of the tech is a semiconductor, electron-based, stackable and scalable technology. [B]You don't BURN a technology, you USE it!.[/B].

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;3088264]And of course, you miss the obvious downsides with solar and wind, The amount of land required to produce enough electricity for 1,000 households per year at a natural gas power plant is just 0. 18 acres, including the land required both for the power plant itself and for the production and transportation facilities to supply natural gas to the plant. By comparison, it would take 6 acres to produce that much electricity with wind power and 8. 4 acres to produce the same amount of electricity with solar power.[/QUOTE]What now?

Is [I][b]"land"[/b][/I] now the latest fossil fuel fallacy (FFF), renewables [I]"boogeyman"[/I] and / or scare tactic to come out of the fossil fuel industry? My short answer to this inquiry and most of the rest of your post, is that almost on any metric, [U]except energy density[/U] (but better watchout, as batteries are fast becoming increasing more dense as), renewables will win the day.

What you often fall to articulate, in your "bogus" land argument is that natural gas (or oil) is largely a pipeline story, with the upstream and midstream network production is responsible for nearly three-quarters of the total land surface footprint, making it much larger than renewables (SWB). As I explained before renewables (SWB) are more inline with nature and land use (ie. Agrivoltaics, rooftop solar, canal solar, floating solar, vertical solar, parking lot rooftop solar. Basically a myriad of places, that dovetail brilliantly with land and space usage).
[LIST][i][b]Re-analysis of land used for energy: Comparison of spatially explicit observations and literature sources:[/b] ... This impending energy sprawl, as well as the current state of energy infrastructure, drives the reported values of land use intensity through reviews, case studies, and life-cycle assessments.

In their review, Fthenakis and Kim (2009) found biomass to have the largest land use, followed by nuclear, with solar as the least land intensive renewable energy technology. Whereas, Stevens et al., 2017 found renewables to have larger spatial footprints, with more ability for land versatility compared to nonrenewable technologies. Although these assessments are helpful, their perspective remains general.

Case studies and life-cycle assessments offer [b]a deeper dive into specific energy technologies.[/b] These include case studies for solar (Ong et al., 2013; Hernandez et al., 2014) and natural gas (Jordaan et al., 2017). Hernandez et al., 2014 found 93 % of solar installments to be PV instead of concentrating solar power (CSP), with higher land use efficiency on private lands as opposed to public lands. Ong et al., 2013 found their land use estimates for PV and CSP consistent with literature values. Regarding the natural gas sector, [b][u]Jordaan et al., 2017 found power plants to have the highest footprint followed by pipelines, then processing facilities.[/u][/b][/i]

[url]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772783125000421?fr=RR-2&ref=pdf_download&rr=a13c03f3d93aedc3#1[/url][/LIST]
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;3088264]Solar power generates electricity approximately 25-30% of the time, while onshore and offshore wind produce power up to 35% and 55% of the time, respectively; compared to 48 percent for conventional coal-fired power plants, 57 percent for natural gas-fired plants, and 93 percent for advanced nuclear plants.[/QUOTE]Still buying into the [B]"Primary Energy Fallacy",[/B] of generating electricity, I see. Well good luck with that and all the other antiquated FFFs, like the grand-daddy of them all "baseload". [URL]https://knowledge.energyinst.org/new-energy-world/article?id=139309[/URL].

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;3088264]Notwithstanding this war, the funny part is the more you dumb Dems demonize fossil fuels the rarer they get and the more money those companies make.[/QUOTE]LOL! Only in your head, do [I]"dumb Dems demonized fossil fuels",[/I] unlike the dumb Repubs, who hold an unhealthy, unnatural and irrational relationship with dirty fossil fuels, that are polluting the plant.

But remember as ALWAYS, I offer no shame in using fossil fuels!

Our [B]Howard Cosell[/B] of energy policy is making a intellectually dishonest argument for [B]SWB[/B] technology [B]SWB[/B] ALONE cannot run a country right now and provide for all of the electricity needs of their citizens.

[QUOTE=SubCmdr;3088407].........The Democrats have no back bone and like [B]Elvis2008[/B] says lack intelligence. The statement made by [B]EihTooms[/B] validates the ideas proffered by [B]Elvis2008[/B] about the lack of intelligence of Democrats. Why would they oppose a move to ease the supply for diesel fuel and lower prices over all for my fellow poor citizens of the Dis United States of America.

[B]Neither Party is Mine![/B][/QUOTE][B]Russia is aiding Irans war effort by providing intel on US military targets, sources say[/B]

[URL]https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/06/politics/russia-aiding-iran-targeting[/URL]

Russia Russia Russia is aiding and abetting Iran in Trump's Repub Forever War of Choice Based on a Repub Lie, to kill and maim American troops and destroy American interests.

Trump is aiding and abetting Russia Russia Russia by choosing to financially benefit Russia Russia Russia rather than simply increase fuel imports from America's most important ally, Canada.

Does that tell you anything about Trump's allegiance to America's enemies instead of America itself and our allies? Or is that too many dots for you and Elvis to connect even by joining forces to work on it?

As far as losing money for Americans goes, the numbskulls who could have but did not vote for Harris in 2024 have cost me personally at least $150,000 on lost property values over the past 20 months due to the depressed economy, pathetic jobs creation numbers, wage losses vs his rate of inflation, higher prices on everyday items, disastrous tariffs, border policies, Iran War increasing gas prices and jacking up interest rates. But I am sure those numbskulls lost even more money for more Americans and, if there is a god, for themselves than that.

Luckily for me, I have no interest in selling my rental properties at this time and since Trump has made it more difficult for Americans to achieve the American Dream of home-ownership, my rent rolls have continued to increase quite nicely over these past months as they have for most of us California property owners for many decades.

However, the financial pain that has caused most Americans thanks to numbskulls not voting for Harris in 2024 has not been lost on us California rental property owners just the same.

[QUOTE=SubCmdr;3088407][B]Russia is not communist today[/B]!

The country ceased to be a communist state with the dissolution of the Soviet Union on December 26,1991, transitioning to a federal semi-presidential republic with a market-based economy and private property.

[URL]https://geographyworlds.com/blog/is-russia-communist-today/[/URL]

The Dis United States of America is not a democracy. It is a [B]Pultocracy[/B]. Democrat or Republican the country is run by corporations who are people and can speak with their money.

The Democrats have no back bone and like [B]Elvis2008[/B] says lack intelligence. The statement made by [B]EihTooms[/B] validates the ideas proffered by [B]Elvis2008[/B] about the lack of intelligence of Democrats. Why would they oppose a move to ease the supply for diesel fuel and lower prices over all for my fellow poor citizens of the Dis United States of America.[/QUOTE]Putin is very rich capitalist with his hidden huge castle, when millions of Russians are poor and suffering from Putin inflation. Americans suffer from Trump inflation.

[QUOTE=Spidy;3088409]Huh! Not exactly sure, what conversation this post of yours is referring to, that I had with SubCmdr, but none recently, that I know of, covered racism, citizenship or a passage relating to "The right of the people..."etc.

But I'm pretty sure our constitutional disagreements, stemmed from whether the "the loyal opposition" is constitutional or not and then later on in the conversational debate, it focused on, "What is the U.S. Constitution?

Don't think your post addresses either of those talking points, so feel free to circle-back and check our conversational debate on those two (2) constitutional subject matters, or correct my understanding of what you posted and chime in again, with your two-cents worth, when you have something credible to add.[/QUOTE]LOL. To an ex pat leech like you living off the government dole in Brazil, the phrase the Constitution is a "framework not a codified code" is the perfect excuse for the government to raid the possessions of others and you are accepting as long as you get a piece of the stolen pie in exchange for your vote.

That is why you have such vitriol with regards to billionaires. You want the government to steal from them and give some of their money to you.

The 4th Amendment makes it clear that is not allowed, and you and a bunch of fucking lawyers and lawyer judges dressing that up and saying it is just a "framework" is the excuse to do so.

This is bullshit lawyer speak and ranks up there with "that depends on what your definition of is is".

The reason the USA is the world's greatest economic power is because of the 4th Amendment. That you are a China humper and think the state should own and control everything (except your money of course) is practically a given.

[QUOTE=Spidy;3088416]Is "land"now the latest fossil fuel fallacy (FFF), renewables "boogeyman" and / or scare tactic to come out of the fossil fuel industry? My short answer to this inquiry and most of the rest of your post, is that almost on any metric, except energy density(but better watchout, as batteries are fast becoming increasing more dense as), renewables will win the day.[/QUOTE]And this is why anyone who knows anything about energy knows why you are so cult like in your beliefs. What you don't get is that China where the government controls all is still cranking out nuclear and coal by the ton and putting up solar and wind just to fool dumb Dems like you into thinking they are an electrostate.

The issues with solar are land and the amount of sunlight. So in the USA, you have places like West Texas, Nevada, hell even Eastern California, where there is cheap land literally sitting there where solar makes sense. Yes, I said that. Solar makes sense in those places. Wind makes sense in part of Texas as well.

But when you go to the American East Coast or the Eastern parts of China and the cost of land skyrockets and the amount of sunlight goes way down, solar makes zero sense. Not only is coal widely available in the Northeast, the #2 state with regards to natural gas production in the USA is Pennsylvania! So of course, coal and natural gas make way more sense on the East Coast than solar does.

And while you go babbling on about solar being cheaper, it is NOT cheaper. It is a huge upfront investment that takes years to pay off. The fact that your tiny brain cannot comprehend what that means speaks volumes. If it really were cheaper, China would be abandoning coal and nuclear and they are not. They are building coal and nuclear like crazy!

[QUOTE=SubCmdr;3088407][B]Russia is not communist today[/B]!

The country ceased to be a communist state with the dissolution of the Soviet Union on December 26,1991, transitioning to a federal semi-presidential republic with a market-based economy and private property.

[URL]https://geographyworlds.com/blog/is-russia-communist-today/[/URL]

The Dis United States of America is not a democracy. It is a [B]Pultocracy[/B]. Democrat or Republican the country is run by corporations who are people and can speak with their money.

The Democrats have no back bone and like [B]Elvis2008[/B] says lack intelligence. The statement made by [B]EihTooms[/B] validates the ideas proffered by [B]Elvis2008[/B] about the lack of intelligence of Democrats. Why would they oppose a move to ease the supply for diesel fuel and lower prices over all for my fellow poor citizens of the Dis United States of America.

[B]Neither Party is Mine![/B][/QUOTE]While you can't pick a side to support in this election year but have no problem siding with Elvis and his Dear Leader Trump in characterizing Democrats as dumb "Dumocrats", where has your history lesson been for Trump about this?

[B]Trump attacks Democrats as communists while acquiring government stakes in private companies.
Trumps actions have drawn criticism even from Republicans, who caution that their party shouldnt abandon long-held beliefs about the governments role in a free-market economy.[/B]

[URL]https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-democrats-communists-acquiring-government-stakes-companies-rcna589642[/URL]

And then you might invite Putin to your classroom, too:

[B]Putins brain is back in the USSR[/B]

[URL]https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/5519747-putins-brain-is-back-in-the-ussr/[/URL]

[QUOTE]The acquisition of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova is the initial phase of Russian President Vladimir Putins plan to reunite the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. His assumption was that the three non-NATO and non-European Union countries could be brought back under Soviet rule in short order without any interference from the West.[/QUOTE]Putin's motivation in invading Ukraine and Trump's unqualified support for him in his endeavor is to restore Russia Russia Russia to its USSR glory.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;3088558]While you can't pick a side to support in this election year but have no problem siding with Elvis and his Dear Leader Trump in characterizing Democrats as dumb "Dumocrats", where has your history lesson been for Trump about this?[/QUOTE]It's not that I cannot pick a side. It that: [I]Neither Party is Mine[/I]!

[B]Since you don't seem to understand it, let me delve into more deeply[/B] The Democrats are hostile to my personal interests. I do not care about their tremendous interest in making sure there are no more bathrooms for men and women. One of the high profile members of the Democratic Party in the Senate formed a [I]anti-crypto army[/I]. They killed the crypto regulation legislation. And have been completely ineffective as a minority party. So, why should I join a party that in [B]2026[/B] is a lame as lame gets. Because once again, I don't give a [I]compound profanity redacted[/I] about the history lessons that [B]EihTooms[/B] gives us about the Democratic performance of Democratic Presidents The sample size is not statistically significant nor the correlation imply causation.

[QUOTE]The phrase "correlation does not imply causation" means that observing a statistical association between two variables is not sufficient to conclude that one variable causes the other to change.[/QUOTE]Those of us with statistical background and that are good with numbers understand this. I have no need to provide the current Article 2 leader with a history lesson. There are people way above my pay grade who's job is to do that. Namely the Democrats that hold federal office.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;3088558]Trump attacks Democrats as communists while acquiring government stakes in private companies.[/QUOTE]That is correct and the Democrats have done nothing about it.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;3088558]Trumps actions have drawn criticism even from Republicans, who caution that their party shouldnt abandon long-held beliefs about the governments role in a free-market economy.[/QUOTE]No dog in the fight.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;3088558]And then you might invite Putin to your classroom, too[/QUOTE]I've been to Moscow twice. Enjoyed my visits. If Mr. Putin requested my presence for anything I would take the meeting.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;3088558]Putin's motivation in invading Ukraine and Trump's unqualified support for him in his endeavor is to restore Russia Russia Russia to its USSR glory.[/QUOTE][B]Completely incorrect[/B] The West provoked Russia. You want to get into it, it will be a subject for another exchange in another post. But before you shoot your mouth off, think Cuban Missile Crisis.

[U]I would like to add[/U]:

[B]Spidy is a smart democrat[/B] I respect him even when I disagree with him. And honestly it isn't that much. Because the majority of information he provided about SWB is spot on! Sometimes we get into a personal disagreement. But that does not lower my respect for him. In other words, I don't hold that he is a member of the Democratic Party against him.

[B]EihTooms[/B] well that is a different story. Considering the word games and spin with very few facts to back up his assertions. Damn straight I agree with the assessment of [B]Elvis2008[/B] when it comes to most democrats and especially [B]EihTooms[/B]. He is a individual I have zero (0) respect from a [B]podunk[/B] country. The reason why I can agree with people on both sides is because I pay attention to the ideas someone presents, not the party affiliation they represent. I can thing for myself. I do not have my thinking done for me by the party leaders.

I rarely agree with [B]Elivs2008[/B] but in this case he is spot on!

The 100 years long correlation and causation of Repubs in the White House and especially when they also control the House and Senate with every Great Depression, Great Recession and Historic Jobs Destruction during that time and none of the great economic recoveries, great economic expansions and historic jobs creation cannot be ignored or dismissed and have instead been highly predictive of future results as I have so blissfully easily and accurately been predicting it since Reagan's first presidential term.

Or maybe the learned statisticians out there prefer to chalk up that uninterrupted 100 years long pattern to "bad luck" for Repubs, "good luck" for Dems, bizarro world economic cycles that only punish Repubs and never Dems or the ever-popular with "Bothsider-Neithersiders" Witch's Curse on Repubs.

Whatever lamebrained excuse anyone who doesn't notice or can't figure out which side to vote for in order to produce far superior USA economic results vs truly horrific USA economic results wants to float in the face of 100 years of correlation, causation, bad luck vs good luck, bizarro world economic cycles and the inevitable witch's curse excuse, none of those things change the historical record of results.

Oh lookie. More results due to mere correlation and a witch's curse and nothing to do with Repub Trump's lamebrained tariffs and Repub Trump's lamebrained Iran War of Choice Based on His Lies just as the high Inflation from 2020 to 2022 was a direct result of him ushering in Trump's Pandemic and his 2020 deal with OPEC to reduce global oil production specifically to increase the price of oil during the historically low-demand Trump's Pandemic era.

As learned statisticians apparently are quick to argue, that is just due to so much bad luck for those poor witch's cursed Repubs:

[B]The latest inflation data is expected to show price increases are accelerating.[/B]

[URL]https://www.cnbc.com/2026/10/13/september-consumer-price-index-inflation.html?__source=androidappshare[/URL]

[QUOTE]Economists expect the consumer price index for September to rise 0.6% on the month and 3.6% year over year.

Core CPI is forecast to show a 0.2% gain on the month and 2.5% annual increase.

Oil-related prices could drive the headline figure even higher, one economist warned.[/QUOTE]Oh well.

We tried.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;3088529]LOL. To an ex pat leech like you living off the government dole in Brazil, the phrase the Constitution is a "framework not a codified code" is the perfect excuse for the government to raid the possessions of others and you are accepting as long as you get a piece of the stolen pie in exchange for your vote. ... That you are a China humper and think the state should own and control everything (except your money of course) is practically a given. [/QUOTE]Silly comments, guessing about my lifestyle, is all the thanks I need, for verifying my suspicions, that [B]you indeed know nothing,[/B] about what [I]The U.S. Constitution[/I] is, or how Constitutional Law arguments like the [I]"loyal opposition"[/I] (posed by SubCmdr), could be or could not be considered constitutional or contained in the Constitution.

But by all means, feel free to chime in again, when you really have something more intellectual, to add on the subject of [I]"What is the U.S. Constitution?[/I]

[QUOTE=SubCmdr;3088420]Our [B]Howard Cosell[/B] of energy policy is making a intellectually dishonest argument for [B]SWB[/B] technology [B]SWB[/B] ALONE cannot run a country right now and provide for all of the electricity needs of their citizens.[/QUOTE]Sure, it's all well and good, to boldly claim intellectual dishonesty, but where are the RECEIPTS of said dishonesty? C'Mon. Now, don't you too fall for the MAGA "Rope-a-Dope" (to coin a Muhammad Ali boxing phrase, often used by Howard Cosell) and think baseless opinions and no facts, is the way to conduct a discussion or debate.

I'd love for you to show me, where I posted that, countries can currently run their entire electricity grid on SWB alone.

I've ALWAYS said and stated that, renewables (meaning non-fossil fuels, not just SWB) in many countries around the world, are starting to make-up, consist and be the majority forms of energy, in their grid's energy mix, as they transition to a cleaner grid and phaseout more and more fossil fuels.

So when calling someone "intellectually dishonest" or otherwise, rest assured, I have and do bring RECEIPTS!

[B]P.S.:[/B] [I]BTW, thanks for the chuckles w/r to your "Howard Cosell of Energy", representation of my energy intellectual analysis! ...LOL![/I].

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;3088532]And this is why anyone who knows anything about energy knows why you are so cult like in your beliefs. What you don't get is that China where the government controls all is still cranking out nuclear and coal by the ton and putting up solar and wind just to fool dumb Dems like you into thinking they are an electrostate.[/QUOTE]So now energy FACTS are now "beliefs" to MAGA that supposedly know anything about energy?

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;3088532]The issues with solar are land and the amount of sunlight. So in the USA, you have places like West Texas, Nevada, hell even Eastern California, where there is cheap land literally sitting there where solar makes sense. Yes, I said that. Solar makes sense in those places. Wind makes sense in part of Texas as well.

But when you go to the American East Coast or the Eastern parts of China and the cost of land skyrockets and the amount of sunlight goes way down, solar makes zero sense. Not only is coal widely available in the Northeast, the #2 state with regards to natural gas production in the USA is Pennsylvania! So of course, coal and natural gas make way more sense on the East Coast than solar does.
[/QUOTE]Why do you keep bringing up the well know FACT, that solar and wind are intermittent. Or is this you being obtuse again?

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;3088532]And while you go babbling on about solar being cheaper, it is NOT cheaper. It is [b]a huge upfront investment[/b] that takes years to pay off.[/QUOTE]You've yet to provide any DATA or FACTS, showing SWB today IS NOT the LCOE. Dude, your MAGA brain, should tell you, ANY energy project is going to have, "a huge upfront investment". Difference being, not only do renewables (SWB) have the lowest LCOE, they also have a better ROI and total cost of ownership (TCO), for energy projects in most places around the world.

As explained to your "no facts provided" MAGA cohort, Canada, that for the past several years, [I]the U.S.[/I] grid operators, the Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) and Independent System Operators (ISOs), have had their energy interconnection proposal queues very close to 100% full, ONLY of renewables (SWB).

So your solar problems and "land" arguments are a REAL joke, IMHO, when near 100% of [I]U.S. energy operator queues[/I] are ONLY looking to implement SWB projects, indicating there are [B]no such fossil fuel "bug-a-boo" land problems[/B] for them. [URL]https://sustainabilitydialogue.uchicago.edu/news/how-the-interconnection-queue-backlog-is-slowing-energy-growth/[/URL].

Elvis2008 was right again!

Senator Elizabeth Warren has cited the USA Government's $1. 2 billion fine against Bank of America as evidence supporting her long-standing argument that cryptocurrency is a primary vehicle for money laundering and sanctions evasion.

Here is the problem, the fine has nothing to do with crypto. This is another example of how dumb Democrats are when it come to technology.

Can we say: [B]It was a traditional bank stupid![/B]!

[URL]https://apnews.com/article/treasury-bank-of-america-money-laundering-29013b2c8f08a3a8d579a96721ed1aa4[/URL]

[QUOTE=Spidy;3088756]Why do you keep bringing up the well know FACT, that solar and wind are intermittent. Or is this you being obtuse again?[/QUOTE]Because you keep exhibiting cult like behavior and blowing off the facts.

[QUOTE=Spidy;3088756]You've yet to provide any DATA or FACTS, showing SWB today IS NOT the LCOE.[/QUOTE]WTF are you talking about? I have gone on ad nausea about how much more expensive solar is than fossil fuels, and your dumb ass thinks that electricity generation and storage for my RV do not follow the same principles of math and physics when it comes to massive generation of power. It would take me going through hundreds of gallons of gasoline to make an investment in solar worthwhile.

[QUOTE=Spidy;3088756]ANY energy project is going to have, "a huge upfront investment". Difference being, not only do renewables (SWB) have the lowest LCOE[/QUOTE]That is the biggest lie being told, and you are out of your damned mind if you believe it.

[QUOTE=Spidy;3088756]So your solar problems and "land" arguments are a REAL joke[/QUOTE]No, your inability to do math is the fucking joke. I know how much land it takes to power up my RV with solar versus a generator twice the size of the average toaster, and your dumb ass does not. Instead of acknowleding the energy generation and land requirements, you spew out personal insults and personal comments about my electricity issues and yell MAGA while you make an ass of yourself.

And this is the latest time you are making an ass of yourself. Data centers on average require a gigawatt of power to function. To generate that much electricity via solar, you need 33,000 acres of land.

That is 5% of all the land in Rhode Island to power ONE data center.

And how many data centers does the USA have?

5,427.

And how many acres does it take to generate that much electricity with one natural gas plant?

30 acres. That is 30 versus 33,000.

Now I do not know how the fuck you and the climate change nuts come up with the notion then that solar is cheaper. Yes, solar has free input costs and natural gas does not but you have to go through burning a shitload of natural gas for the solar plant to break even.

And your dumb ass is so stupid it never even occurs to you that there is a huge diffence in land costs. You think land in Rhode Island costs the same as land in West Texas? Get the fuck out of here!

Your OWN fucking data showed solar was more expensive, and this is the part you do not get.

There are no land costs when the government owns 90% of the land in Nevada, and you can throw up all the solar panels you want and outside of the panel costs and batteries, it would be "free". The problem is the billions and trillions you have to invest into power lines to move that electricity to densely populated areas, and that is just one factor.

I can be a climate change nut too. I can charge my batteries fully with a $200 rooftop solar panel versus a $400 generator, and I can do so without increased land usage and without the use of fossil fuel. So it is cheaper than fossil fuel! You see how smart you are Spidy!

Of course, there is the rub. It takes 10 to 20 days to charge the batteries with solar versus 5 hours with a gas generator. So as I keep saying, solar has its place. It is fine to charge the RV batteries via solar when I am not using the RV but when I am, solar does not generate enough juice when you use an AC, stove, refigerator, computer, and TV, and that is something your dumb Dem binary brain cannot compute.

It is solar good, fossil fuels bad, Dems good, Republicans bad. Like with everything else, it is obvious you have no skin in the game. If you actually did, you woule have a clue as to what I am saying.